7 ms·

How Solo Founders Beat The Odds and Get Into Top Accelerators

102 points by gbelote 14y ago

bruceb 14y ago
While not as famous as Y Combinator, Xin Chen got in to the Bizdom (Cleveland) accelerator with http://www.queryly.com/ http://www.queryly.com/ (powering site search with speed, beauty & brains) as a solo founder. For those who don't know Bizdom is part of the Rock Ventures family of companies. The office: http://bit.ly/WWfdhJ http://bit.ly/WWfdhJ
- davidpayne11 14y ago
  https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/5853762246423701313/5853762260238180210 https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/... The sofa in this photo looks more like a casting couch..just saying xD
  - bruceb 14y ago
    Funny. From that angle is you are right.
ronyeh 14y ago
And of course, Drew from Dropbox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html But he notes that he had a team already working with him, even though technically he was a "solo founder."
- agwa 14y ago
  He almost immediately partnered up with Arash Ferdowsi as his co-founder.
  - ronyeh 14y ago
    Cool. I definitely agree that having a cofounder is the way to go, especially since the best examples we have were rockstar duos: Apple, Google, Microsoft.
slmt 14y ago
Having co-founders is overrated. I wonder how many single founder startups became multiple founder startups just to get into an accelerator. I've been approached a number of times, sometimes even by people I've met only once or twice.
technotony 14y ago
The comment at the end, about how co-founders can split a company if their vision diverges, is very true. Many companies go through pivots, and without a strong leader they struggle here. I'd rather be a single cofounder and work to bring on a team (being generous with equity) than force myself to bring on the wrong cofounder. Luckily I can code, as doing it without any technical chops would be very hard. The toughest thing I find is switching from a 'maker' mentality to 'manager' mentality as it's hard to get out of a coding mindset when a meeting or call is needed. I find splitting days into maker days and business days works well to balance this.
RawData 14y ago
It's nonsense to say that you must have co-founders...I've been building companies for 17 years as a single founder. People do it all the time...
- pekk 14y ago
  Perhaps a distinction is drawn between building companies, and getting funding from certain types of VCs
  - arbuge 14y ago
    The former is the only thing that matters. Kudos to you if you can do it without enriching VCs along the way.
graycat 14y ago
On the need for more than one founder, I definitely don't 'get it'. For a minute, let's set aside information technology startups and look at business startups: All across the US, border to border, from crossroads to the largest cities, the US is just awash in sole proprietorships. They mow grass, run 12 fast food restaurants, repair cars, run 10 gas stations with convenience stores, run Italian red sauce restaurants, are dentists, pediatricians, etc. One owner, zero to a few hundred employees. So, sole founder, one owner works fine, millions of times across the US, in business. Now, for an information technology startup, that's just an advantage, at least through a business of similar size. If a guy running 10 pizza shops can be a solo founder, then a guy running a Web site or writing an app can also. Technical knowledge? It takes a lot of technical knowledge to repair, correctly, efficiently any car that drives in to an auto repair shop or auto body shop or be up to date on dentistry, pediatrics, etc. Information technology is not nearly the only field that needs technical knowledge. For an information technology startup, it stands to help if the founder, CEO actually understands the work. The best way for him to do this is to do the work. There actually doing the work may not take so much time and, instead, getting the background, say, 4000 Web pages of documentation from Microsoft's MSDN, can take more time. But if he is going to understand the work, then he needs the background. So, given the background, go ahead and do the work. Later, when there's plenty of revenue and more work to do, start hiring. If the project grows well past a 'life style' business to a big thing, fine, but still I see no great reason to have more than one founder. I can guess why some venture investors want more than one founder.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  May I ask whether you have much experience as a sole proprietor or solo founder? As a solo founder of a startup that I've been running for almost the past four years, if I had anyone in my network that wasn't scared to death of leaving the comfort of a full-time job behind to join me as a cofounder, I would have brought them on board in a heartbeat. One reason a technology startup is significantly more stressful than a standard business is that, by definition, you are in uncharted territory. Traditional businesses have loads of successful examples; the business model and value proposition to customers are both largely consistent. With most tech startups, you have to invent a new business model, create new technology fron scratch, and convince customers that your never-before-seen product or service is something they should spend their hard-earned money on. 1. The business model: Though there are a few general patterns available for web startups to use (e.g. freemium, ad-supported), every startup has to figure out how to become profitable within its particular niche. It's unlikely you'll find success by copying someone else's model exactly, while you can do exactly that in the small business world. Startups selling physical products (such as mine) likely don't even have freemium or advertising as options for experimentation, though there are some product startups exploring variations of those options. 2. The technology: Writing code and designing user interfaces is nothing like repairing cars. There's no doubt that there are a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable mechanics (even some who are also software developers), but there's a very large difference between understanding an existing system, and creating a new system from nothing but keystrokes. The common tasks of the mechanic can be done almost by instinct and memorization, leaving sufficient mental horsepower available for the few particularly tricky problems. Most startup-worthy software projects will involve intense creative effort at every step of development, which is far more mentally taxing. 3. Value proposition: Consumers already know they need a mechanic, or food, or a dentist. As a restaurateur, for example, you mostly need to convince willing consumers to come to your restaurant instead of your competition. A tech startup has to convince customers that they need to spend money on an entirely new category of product. Most people will agonize over the smallest expenditure if it's not part of their traditional purchase sphere (purchasphere?). In summary, the stresses of running a tech startup, especially for someone in their 20s with at most a couple tens of thousands in savings, are far beyond what most solo founders can bear, and only those who are determined beyond reason (or already rich) should dream of going it alone.
petewarden 14y ago
I went through Techstars in 2010 as their first solo founder, and I failed pretty hard. The combination of talks, mentor sessions, wooing potential team members, and pitch practice left me almost no time to code and plan the product. For the final pitch, all I had was demo ware, and I felt an idiot getting up on stage. It was a worthwhile failure for me, I made some great friends and learned a lot, but I'd counsel any lone founder to focus on growing some kind of support team around them as the first priority. I would never contemplate an accelerator as a solo founder, but I have nothing but admiration for those who have managed it.
- npt4279 14y ago
  That might be more of an issue with Techstars than being a solo founder (I've been through Techstars as a solo founder. I'm also a YC alum). Techstars has lots of talks, sessions, and pitch practice. YC has almost none of that - one dinner a week, otherwise, a complete focus on product and customers.
  - corry 14y ago
    Agreed. I started out solo in an incubator and had to be RUTHLESS with my time. Basically didn't really make use of the mentors / sessions / etc - too busy writing code / making sales calls. Didn't spend time networking with the other startups - too busy trying to network in my industry. Didn't spend time on pitch competitions etc - too busy trying to find real investors who knew me and knew the space. I've since added a co-founder, but we more or less still operate the same (probably a bit to our detriment).
- cpursley 14y ago
  Why didn't you contract coding out (possibly you did)?
tonyedgecombe 14y ago
This "single founder isn't optimal" idea has been doing the rounds for a while now. I wonder if there is some independent research that either backs it up or refutes it.
- brudgers 14y ago
  My understanding is that there is independent research and some of it has been done by YC. See PG's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77319 Keep in mind that, in general, any meaningful research showing differential rates of return will probably be proprietary because of the potential business advantage it confers.
- dasil003 14y ago
  This is one area where I'd be skeptical of "data" because I think there are too many variables to separate any signal out of the noise. First, there are not all that many startups to begin with, and they all do different things. Whether it's one founder or many seems way down on the list of factors influencing the success. If you had thousands of startups entering a single market within a short time span then maybe you could get something, but not in the current world. Furthermore, I think as a founder if you concern yourself much over this point you are likely to fail. Building a startup is a game of applying extremely limited resources, if you are focused on structural details like number of founders then you are necessarily not focused on the unique metrics of success for your business. Of course there are pros and cons to being solo or multiple founders, but in the end a motivated individual should never let conventional wisdom get in the way of pushing forward (especially from investors who are grasping for any kind of signal to hang their hat on!). Conversely, if a person with the right talents and skills comes along you should absolutely allow them a co-founder seat even if you planned on going it alone as this will magnify your sphere of opportunity in terms of execution potential.
jt2190 14y ago
tl;dr It's difficult, not impossible, to be accepted to a startup accelerator if you're a solo founder. wtads [What The Article Didn't Say] * Startups can't make it without an accelerator * Solo founders can't run successful startups
- arbuge 14y ago
  "* Startups can't make it without an accelerator * Solo founders can't run successful startups" Eh? Successful startups without accelerators and successful solo founders have been around since the dawn of time...
  - e1ven 14y ago
    That's jt2190's point ;) He's reinforcing that the article did NOT say that. The article talks about it being more difficult to get accepted into an accelerator.
arbuge 14y ago
The focus should really be on how solo founders beat the odds and start top companies. I think there's way too much emphasis in the press & in people's mindsets these days on getting funding, getting into incubators, etc. Those things may be sexy but they're not the point of the game - at best they're tools to help you get there.

102 points by gbelote 14y ago

While not as famous as Y Combinator, Xin Chen got in to the Bizdom (Cleveland) accelerator with http://www.queryly.com/ http://www.queryly.com/ (powering site search with speed, beauty & brains) as a solo founder. For those who don't know Bizdom is part of the Rock Ventures family of companies. The office: http://bit.ly/WWfdhJ http://bit.ly/WWfdhJ

davidpayne11 14y ago
https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/5853762246423701313/5853762260238180210 https://plus.google.com/photos/114453701162851629569/albums/... The sofa in this photo looks more like a casting couch..just saying xD
- bruceb 14y ago
  Funny. From that angle is you are right.

ronyeh 14y ago

And of course, Drew from Dropbox: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27532820/app.html But he notes that he had a team already working with him, even though technically he was a "solo founder."

agwa 14y ago
He almost immediately partnered up with Arash Ferdowsi as his co-founder.
- ronyeh 14y ago
  Cool. I definitely agree that having a cofounder is the way to go, especially since the best examples we have were rockstar duos: Apple, Google, Microsoft.

slmt 14y ago

Having co-founders is overrated. I wonder how many single founder startups became multiple founder startups just to get into an accelerator. I've been approached a number of times, sometimes even by people I've met only once or twice.

technotony 14y ago

The comment at the end, about how co-founders can split a company if their vision diverges, is very true. Many companies go through pivots, and without a strong leader they struggle here. I'd rather be a single cofounder and work to bring on a team (being generous with equity) than force myself to bring on the wrong cofounder. Luckily I can code, as doing it without any technical chops would be very hard. The toughest thing I find is switching from a 'maker' mentality to 'manager' mentality as it's hard to get out of a coding mindset when a meeting or call is needed. I find splitting days into maker days and business days works well to balance this.

RawData 14y ago

It's nonsense to say that you must have co-founders...I've been building companies for 17 years as a single founder. People do it all the time...

pekk 14y ago
Perhaps a distinction is drawn between building companies, and getting funding from certain types of VCs
- arbuge 14y ago
  The former is the only thing that matters. Kudos to you if you can do it without enriching VCs along the way.

graycat 14y ago

On the need for more than one founder, I definitely don't 'get it'. For a minute, let's set aside information technology startups and look at business startups: All across the US, border to border, from crossroads to the largest cities, the US is just awash in sole proprietorships. They mow grass, run 12 fast food restaurants, repair cars, run 10 gas stations with convenience stores, run Italian red sauce restaurants, are dentists, pediatricians, etc. One owner, zero to a few hundred employees. So, sole founder, one owner works fine, millions of times across the US, in business. Now, for an information technology startup, that's just an advantage, at least through a business of similar size. If a guy running 10 pizza shops can be a solo founder, then a guy running a Web site or writing an app can also. Technical knowledge? It takes a lot of technical knowledge to repair, correctly, efficiently any car that drives in to an auto repair shop or auto body shop or be up to date on dentistry, pediatrics, etc. Information technology is not nearly the only field that needs technical knowledge. For an information technology startup, it stands to help if the founder, CEO actually understands the work. The best way for him to do this is to do the work. There actually doing the work may not take so much time and, instead, getting the background, say, 4000 Web pages of documentation from Microsoft's MSDN, can take more time. But if he is going to understand the work, then he needs the background. So, given the background, go ahead and do the work. Later, when there's plenty of revenue and more work to do, start hiring. If the project grows well past a 'life style' business to a big thing, fine, but still I see no great reason to have more than one founder. I can guess why some venture investors want more than one founder.

nitrogen 14y ago
May I ask whether you have much experience as a sole proprietor or solo founder? As a solo founder of a startup that I've been running for almost the past four years, if I had anyone in my network that wasn't scared to death of leaving the comfort of a full-time job behind to join me as a cofounder, I would have brought them on board in a heartbeat. One reason a technology startup is significantly more stressful than a standard business is that, by definition, you are in uncharted territory. Traditional businesses have loads of successful examples; the business model and value proposition to customers are both largely consistent. With most tech startups, you have to invent a new business model, create new technology fron scratch, and convince customers that your never-before-seen product or service is something they should spend their hard-earned money on. 1. The business model: Though there are a few general patterns available for web startups to use (e.g. freemium, ad-supported), every startup has to figure out how to become profitable within its particular niche. It's unlikely you'll find success by copying someone else's model exactly, while you can do exactly that in the small business world. Startups selling physical products (such as mine) likely don't even have freemium or advertising as options for experimentation, though there are some product startups exploring variations of those options. 2. The technology: Writing code and designing user interfaces is nothing like repairing cars. There's no doubt that there are a lot of intelligent, knowledgeable mechanics (even some who are also software developers), but there's a very large difference between understanding an existing system, and creating a new system from nothing but keystrokes. The common tasks of the mechanic can be done almost by instinct and memorization, leaving sufficient mental horsepower available for the few particularly tricky problems. Most startup-worthy software projects will involve intense creative effort at every step of development, which is far more mentally taxing. 3. Value proposition: Consumers already know they need a mechanic, or food, or a dentist. As a restaurateur, for example, you mostly need to convince willing consumers to come to your restaurant instead of your competition. A tech startup has to convince customers that they need to spend money on an entirely new category of product. Most people will agonize over the smallest expenditure if it's not part of their traditional purchase sphere (purchasphere?). In summary, the stresses of running a tech startup, especially for someone in their 20s with at most a couple tens of thousands in savings, are far beyond what most solo founders can bear, and only those who are determined beyond reason (or already rich) should dream of going it alone.

petewarden 14y ago

I went through Techstars in 2010 as their first solo founder, and I failed pretty hard. The combination of talks, mentor sessions, wooing potential team members, and pitch practice left me almost no time to code and plan the product. For the final pitch, all I had was demo ware, and I felt an idiot getting up on stage. It was a worthwhile failure for me, I made some great friends and learned a lot, but I'd counsel any lone founder to focus on growing some kind of support team around them as the first priority. I would never contemplate an accelerator as a solo founder, but I have nothing but admiration for those who have managed it.

npt4279 14y ago
That might be more of an issue with Techstars than being a solo founder (I've been through Techstars as a solo founder. I'm also a YC alum). Techstars has lots of talks, sessions, and pitch practice. YC has almost none of that - one dinner a week, otherwise, a complete focus on product and customers.
- corry 14y ago
  Agreed. I started out solo in an incubator and had to be RUTHLESS with my time. Basically didn't really make use of the mentors / sessions / etc - too busy writing code / making sales calls. Didn't spend time networking with the other startups - too busy trying to network in my industry. Didn't spend time on pitch competitions etc - too busy trying to find real investors who knew me and knew the space. I've since added a co-founder, but we more or less still operate the same (probably a bit to our detriment).
cpursley 14y ago
Why didn't you contract coding out (possibly you did)?

tonyedgecombe 14y ago

This "single founder isn't optimal" idea has been doing the rounds for a while now. I wonder if there is some independent research that either backs it up or refutes it.

brudgers 14y ago
My understanding is that there is independent research and some of it has been done by YC. See PG's comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=77319 Keep in mind that, in general, any meaningful research showing differential rates of return will probably be proprietary because of the potential business advantage it confers.
dasil003 14y ago
This is one area where I'd be skeptical of "data" because I think there are too many variables to separate any signal out of the noise. First, there are not all that many startups to begin with, and they all do different things. Whether it's one founder or many seems way down on the list of factors influencing the success. If you had thousands of startups entering a single market within a short time span then maybe you could get something, but not in the current world. Furthermore, I think as a founder if you concern yourself much over this point you are likely to fail. Building a startup is a game of applying extremely limited resources, if you are focused on structural details like number of founders then you are necessarily not focused on the unique metrics of success for your business. Of course there are pros and cons to being solo or multiple founders, but in the end a motivated individual should never let conventional wisdom get in the way of pushing forward (especially from investors who are grasping for any kind of signal to hang their hat on!). Conversely, if a person with the right talents and skills comes along you should absolutely allow them a co-founder seat even if you planned on going it alone as this will magnify your sphere of opportunity in terms of execution potential.

jt2190 14y ago

tl;dr It's difficult, not impossible, to be accepted to a startup accelerator if you're a solo founder. wtads [What The Article Didn't Say] * Startups can't make it without an accelerator * Solo founders can't run successful startups

arbuge 14y ago
"* Startups can't make it without an accelerator * Solo founders can't run successful startups" Eh? Successful startups without accelerators and successful solo founders have been around since the dawn of time...
- e1ven 14y ago
  That's jt2190's point ;) He's reinforcing that the article did NOT say that. The article talks about it being more difficult to get accepted into an accelerator.

arbuge 14y ago

The focus should really be on how solo founders beat the odds and start top companies. I think there's way too much emphasis in the press & in people's mindsets these days on getting funding, getting into incubators, etc. Those things may be sexy but they're not the point of the game - at best they're tools to help you get there.